I enjoy how the tactics on mogul have changed, I took a wild guess on what would work and it paid off. Though I do feel kinda bad for the poor colonels that Ive been facing under these settings who had to learn what the trench was the hard way.

Paddy The Cat wrote:i really like it on certain maps... it changes the game completely!

I think so too, from the test games I've played around in and from reading the 52 pages of the suggestion topic, where there was a lot of discussion about strategy and what you need to do to adapt to this style of play.

Whe we were using the honour rule (in fact there are still games ongoing with that rule) we had true epic games. It's a lot about being patient but bold. You have to be patient because you have to wait for the right time, but you have to be bold to push an attack when it's the right time, and maintain that attack even if your supply lines get cut.

And talking about supply lines, they really become important now. You can have a stand against a more poweful player if you manage to cut his land in two.

Also, the "Big stack of Doom"(TM) does not rule the game anymore. Yes, you can have a huge stack of troops in one front. But that means you are leaving your other front(s) undefended. That can be part of the plan, hoping that you will manage to achieve your objectives in front A before front B falls completely. So more about calculations and careful plans.

By the way, I think that the "Freestyle" option really makes sense now. As movement is now limited, the traditional problem of being defeated by a player that is always online dissapears or at least gets a lot less important. The "always online" player will be able to make the first move, but this first move won't be a kill run through all your land.

I look forward to interesting strategic debates about this new setting

OliverFA wrote:By the way, I think that the "Freestyle" option really makes sense now. As movement is now limited, the traditional problem of being defeated by a player that is always online dissapears or at least gets a lot less important. The "always online" player will be able to make the first move, but this first move won't be a kill run through all your land.

Freestyle does become a little more friendly with the setting I think.

what do i think hmm fucking great just made it so easy to farm point thanks very much 4 rounds 8 minutes and under woo hoo points points points city mog if your wondering speed 1min oh and no need to be a freestyle conqueror happy days

i would like to see some kind of run down button added to this because at points there is a point of no return and on some maps it can last up to 10 15 rounds after the end. in our gentlemans honour games we would allow whoever was winning to run through killing who was left to end it quicker.

already played one wasnt 8 player but lasted 71 rounds. only 6 of us had the bottle to play it lol

Been there, done that

eddie2 wrote:i would like to see some kind of run down button added to this because at points there is a point of no return and on some maps it can last up to 10 15 rounds after the end. in our gentlemans honour games we would allow whoever was winning to run through killing who was left to end it quicker.

I think a "Domination" victory option would be enough. Like:IF Player owns 75% regions AND 75% armies THEN Player WINS

I watched some games and what I can say is that trench is playable only to 1v1 games. I do not think that any other game with trench is playable. They are so stale that players should play very-very bad in order to finish. I do not think I will ever try it.

'IF Player owns 75% regions AND 75% armies THEN Player WINS'

this does not make any sense. There are a lot of games that even if you have 75% regions AND 75% armies you can not win!!!

these games are so stale that even if you are playing a small map, (doodle earth) escalating having the 75% of the army is not enough because within the 3-4 rounds you need to clean the board the other players can take spoils, have a set and cash

mc05025 wrote:I watched some games and what I can say is that trench is playable only to 1v1 games. I do not think that any other game with trench is playable. They are so stale that players should play very-very bad in order to finish. I do not think I will ever try it.

'IF Player owns 75% regions AND 75% armies THEN Player WINS'

this does not make any sense. There are a lot of games that even if you have 75% regions AND 75% armies you can not win!!!

these games are so stale that even if you are playing a small map, (doodle earth) escalating having the 75% of the army is not enough because within the 3-4 rounds you need to clean the board the other players can take spoils, have a set and cash

It certainly isn't a setting for everyone, but I think there is a large base of support for feature. Just like with Fog, some people dislike the idea of not seeing the game board and play games more exclusively that are closer to the original set-up with which they are familiar.

mc05025 wrote:this does not make any sense. There are a lot of games that even if you have 75% regions AND 75% armies you can not win!!!

Would you be so kind to provide some examples that back that "a lot" statement?

Of course we all know that some games are not decided when a player has 75% regions 75% armies, but we also know that most games are decided by that point. So, as a mean to speed up the endgame I think it's a very valid option, and something less likely to abuse than the forfeit option.

You can see as an objective. In some maps, when a player gets the objective, the other players could still win. So, why does the game ends? Because that's a rule of engagement.

I'm not sure if I like it yet because I haven't had a lot of time to play it, but I've started 3 trench tournaments on Monday and they are all going and I just started 2 more, so people are pretty interested in it.